« Who Was Milton Friedman? | Main | The Road To Serfdom: Now With 100% More Cartoons »

January 28, 2007

Can't Fight City Desk?

By Ezra

As Ogged notes, that controversy over the Virginia libraries trashing literary classics turns out to have been largely concocted: They were throwing out excess copies of titles, they still had plenty available to check out. As he says, thanks media. Nevertheless, I wonder if the libraries couldn't have, I don't know, e-mailed more of those who commented on the situation, or posted a correction on their web site, or otherwise fought harder against the misrepresentation. They shouldn't have been misrepresented in the first place, of course, but once they were, why didn't they battle back harder?

Indeed, I'm always a bit unsettled by the odd placidity with which individuals or institutions will let the media misrepresent their thoughts, work, or actions. I remember calling Harvard economist Lawrence Katz after David Brooks appeared, to me, to misrepresent his work. Katz agreed and was perfectly willing to detail, on the record, exactly where Brooks had misrepresented him and what his actual opinions were. But he seemed basically amused by the whole thing. He happily corrected the record when I called, but had no interest in writing into the paper, or writing a rebuttal under his byline, or otherwise taking affirmative steps to ensure his work and reputation weren't publicly distorted. Obviously, this doesn't ameliorate the media's culpability in misrepresenting stories or individuals, I'm just always a tad astonished by the meek acceptance often offered by their wronged subjects.

January 28, 2007 in Media | Permalink

Comments

I'm not sure it's "meek acceptance" as much as a realization akin to "you can't fight City Hall." I know, for example, doctors whose entire repertoire of party talk seems to be correcting erroneous media discussions of medical marvels.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jan 28, 2007 3:36:55 PM

I am a moron--I just noticed the title.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Jan 28, 2007 3:37:39 PM

I know a number of people who get quoted in the press, including my wife. Their collective experience with misquotation and misunderstanding has been sufficiently consistent, even with "good" papers, that the aggregate advice going right now appears to boil down to two points.

One, get the reporter to spell your name back to you twice, to make sure it is right. Two, speak on background to try to educate the reporter, then for attribution pick just the single phrase you want quoted. Have this read back to you twice as well.

Then, live with the fact that neither your name or the phrase will be correct in tomorrow's newspaper.

Posted by: wcw | Jan 28, 2007 3:51:31 PM

Who, with half a brain, listens to Brooks' BS anyway? Just another reason that I only pay the Times for the puzzles.

Posted by: Richard | Jan 28, 2007 4:07:54 PM

Tenured professors have different concerns from you and me. They simply assume they will be misunderstood in the press.

PS- My father used to say that the only thing the Washington Post ever got right was the date. Then one year they gave away a free calendar - and there, on the April page, was April 31.

Posted by: bloikx | Jan 28, 2007 4:30:38 PM

There is the old adage about getting into a pissing contest with a skunk. Newspapers (and particularly opinion columnists) are not just wrong some of the time, they are so often wrong and so assertive about their story line that most people who deal with them regularly just figure trying to get corrections on the record is only going to make things worse.

Posted by: Salmo | Jan 28, 2007 5:09:55 PM

Tenured professors have different concerns from you and me. They simply assume they will be misunderstood in the press.

This was my thought on the matter... Prof. Katz's career isn't going to be affected in any way by the fact that Brooks is misrepresenting his research on TV. Katz's professional interests reside in ensuring that other economists in his field understand his work and that he is able to attract the best graduate students in his field to work for him. Whether this is healthy or not is another matter, but truthfully many professors are too busy with and too interested in their own research that they don't want to be distracted with becoming a "public intellectual."

Brook's own impression of American society (lame and simple-minded as it is) actually helps explain this dynamic. Brooks described the US as a place not of strict hierarchy but rather as a high school cafeteria-- everyone had their clique and tribe that they lunched with and found their own social merit through at their own tables. How someone at one lunch table feels about someone at another lunch table doesn't have much relevance.

Posted by: Constantine | Jan 28, 2007 5:31:43 PM

Another problem is that in a number of cases, the misrepresentee is just collateral damage in an argument the misrepresenter is having with someone else. The Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame situation is a perfect example of this. If there was nothing at stake except whether Joe Wilson was right - and nothing rode on whether Joe Wilson was right - the situation would have been far different. And look at all the help he had defending himself.

If you read the Deborah Howell article you link to closely, you'll see that the librarians did complain to the ombudsman. If there were no larger battle in place, that would have been enough, I think. In many ways, Ezra, the fact that you noticed the battle is observational bias - evidence that it is, indeed, larger than just the accuracy of the report itself. Without the larger battle, no greater defense is really needed.

Posted by: Sam | Jan 28, 2007 5:58:09 PM

Oh I don't know... I think part of this is "just how touchy are you"? People mishear things, misread things, misinterpret things. You can turn them into spectacular cause celebres or you can move on... Perhaps Katz's amusement was knowing that he knew what he was talking about, and if some idiot couldn't see it, he wasn't worth the effort (a corollary, really, to academic arrogance, if you think about it). People spell my name wrong (even my pseudonym), accuse me of saying things I never said, and meaning things I never meant. And I do all of these things to other people (although I am a natural speller; I blame the keyboard). It's not the end of the world. I think the press generally gets it more right than they get it wrong, and the good ones try hard to get it right. You want perfect, look elsewhere. You want to pick a fight, have at it. But perhaps it's less about wanting to get it right and more about wanting to win it.

Posted by: weboy | Jan 28, 2007 6:19:10 PM

There is such a thing as adding fuel to a fire. Sometimes by drawing MORE attention to a story by refuting it you create an even bigger mess. Which is sometimes what the media wants. "Oooo! A fight! Let's cover it!"

The library knew the story would blow over. They knew there was nothing wrong with what they were doing. Plus, librarians are busy folks. We got other shit to worry about!

Posted by: san antone rose | Jan 28, 2007 7:22:59 PM

What wcw said, almost word for word.

Posted by: Kimmitt | Jan 29, 2007 3:23:51 AM

If it were not for odd placidity in the face of a smear, President Kerry would already have gotten us out of Iraq.

Posted by: Kevin Rooney | Jan 29, 2007 3:27:14 AM

About you can't fight the City Desk,
I was involved with a spiritual commune that achieved some notoriety in the 80s. The commune leadership revelled in the notoriety and posted every press clipping they could find onto a huge bulletin board at the community cafeteria.
Out of the hundreds of articles posted, including many by the top newspapers (NY Times, Times of London, WP, WSJ, LA Times), all but three make mistakes in simple, non-controversial facts, such as the year in which the commune arrived in America or the name of the closest city. And the three that were mistake-free were all magazine articles written by non-journalists.
It made me wonder if the information President Reagan was given was any better.

The interesting long-term question is how we can run an increasingly information-centered society (rather than a labor-centered, or capital-centered one) with such low societal standards for accuracy.

I dream of the day when this kind of inaccuracy is viewed the way we view the slave trade or having redlight districts in every city.

I mention redlight districts because as a society we are organized in such a way that most mass media are paid not for transmitting information but rather for drawing in suckers to be advertised at.

Posted by: Kevin Rooney | Jan 29, 2007 3:35:41 AM

as a society we are organized in such a way that most mass media are paid not for transmitting information but rather for drawing in suckers to be advertised at.

Another way of looking at it is this:
http://www.colorado.edu/communication/meta-discourses/Theory/models.html

There are two models of communication. The obvious one is the transmission model - Alice, the transmitter, provides information to Bob, Charlie and Dave, the receivers.
Examples of this include TV listings. Bob wants to know what's on, so he looks at the listings (in a newspaper written by Alice) and receives information, which he can then act on.
But there is another model: the ritual model. In this, the content of Alice's newspaper doesn't really matter. Bob, Charlie and Dave don't really care what's going on in countries they'll never visit and books they'll never read. The point is that, by buying the "Alice Times", they define themselves as members of a community, which shares certain attributes.

So accuracy in an article doesn't really matter very much, because the important thing is not to learn something from the article, but simply to read it in the first place.

Posted by: ajay | Jan 29, 2007 5:52:38 AM

Incredible site!

Posted by: ultram | Jul 1, 2007 10:56:08 AM

I am really excited. Very useful. All the best!

Posted by: hydrocodone | Jul 29, 2007 7:39:38 PM

Buy Generic Viagra - Buy Generic Viagra
Generic Viagra - Generic Viagra
Generic Cialis - Generic Cialis
Generic Levitra - Generic Levitra

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generic Propecia - Generic Propecia
Generic Meridia - Generic Meridia
Generic Zocor - Generic Zocor
Generic Soma - Generic Soma
Generic Prozac - Generic Prozac

Posted by: matt | Sep 11, 2007 10:54:47 AM

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘

托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘


托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

Posted by: JUDY | Sep 26, 2007 4:15:17 AM

Post a comment